Is war inevitable? Is man essentially aggressive by nature? These are questions that have been asked by several generations of researchers, conflict analysts and anthropologists. It has been noted that the 20th century has been recorded as the most violent in history, with over 100 million deaths in war and 175 million in politically related violence. Especially in the present day scenario, with the threat of more wars and retaliatory attacks appearing on the horizon, these questions and the answers to them seem even more relevant. William L. Ury, author, co-founder and director of the Project on Preventing War at the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School and member of its steering committee and a panel of experts from several scientific disciplines present surprising answers to these burning questions as well as a viable alternative through their presentation of compelling new research and insights into human nature in Must We Fight? From the Battlefield to the Schoolyard -  A New Perspective on Violent Conflict and Its Prevention.

In this book, the second in a series published in cooperation with the Program on Negotiation, the authors expose the commonly held belief that violence is a predictable part of the human condition and present an innovative model for preventing violent confrontations. In Must We Fight, Ury clearly outlines a novel program for personal and community empowerment called The Third Side, which is shown to have much success in overcoming obstacles and preventing violence.

Carefully examining deep-rooted beliefs about humanity's natural instinct for violence and total destruction of other species, through supporting evidence from the fields of anthropology, primatology and modern day conflict resolution, Ury presents a story that is completely different from the common brutal one of our primate and prehistoric heritage. The book commences by outlining the basis on which the ideology of violent human nature is based: on the knowledge of chimpanzees and other primates; on the archeological record; and knowledge of ancient societies. He traces the origins of humans as carnivores being equated with humans as aggressors. This was a theory propounded by Raymond Dart, who built his case based on fossil evidence. It presented the idea that aggressive behaviour is generated internally in the individual, either by drive, by hormones, by genes, by learning, by models on TV or by frustration. It was explained that aggression thus generated, needs to come out, often with horrific results. A similar idea was put forward by Calhoun, who after experimenting with rats, found that crowded rats fight a lot.  Robert Ardrey interpreted this to mean that human beings crowded into inner cities too will behave in a similar manner. Konrad Lorenz presented similar beliefs experimenting with fish and geese.

However, Ury in his chapter provides compelling evidence of humanity's powerful inborn mechanisms for cooperation and negotiation, for suppressing aggressive impulses and solving disputes without engaging in violence or going to battle. Looking at aggression as one of the options available in the instance of a conflict of interest,  he is of the opinion: "Basically, conflicts of interest are inevitable in all mammalian species.  There are three basic solutions to conflicts of interest. One is avoidance, which is a typical hierarchical solution, for example when a subordinate avoids the dominant animal, when it approaches.  Another is tolerance, for example, the sharing of food which chimpanzees and bonobos do, rather than fight over it.  The third one is to fight, which is aggression. These are the three options and it depends on the circumstances and on the partner and on the resource at stake which option is selected."

Through the use of numerous examples drawn from various parts of the world, it is shown that even Bushmen in Botswana and Namibia, who describe themselves as being 'owners of argument' , when having  disputes, attempt to handle them in a peaceful manner by asking others to intercede.  The others in turn are requested to have a calming word with the disputants. Thus, it is shown that their way of managing conflict 'is the vigilant, active and constructive involvement ' of the surrounding members of the community. This open and inclusive process continues until the dispute is literally talked out, in order to restore the social harmony that is critical to their community.

The idea is given that aggression is triggered by particular situations. Frans de Waal posits that aggression  in primates occur in a social context and that mechanisms for cooperation are as natural as aggression.  This position is collaborated in his presentation, in which he states: ".behaviour,. is a combination of two influences. One is an environmental one and the other is a genetic one. .peacemaking tendencies are subject to social influences." However, it is to be noted that he bases his deductions on individuals who know each other and who live within the group. He is of the view that out group behaviour is different from in group behaviour. Presenting his research on macaques, he gives the idea that less than 5% of their time is devoted to aggression; they spend a significant amount of time on playing and grooming, during which time they get along well with each other. This and more examples bring us to what the author makes clear:  "Violence is a choice." In addition, Brian Ferguson, an anthropologist of war, asserts that archeological evidence shows a history of limited flare-ups of carefully planned violence that benefit elites rather than a regular constant pattern of violent conflict.

In such a scenario, Ury presents the idea that:

"Human nature is not inherently peaceful; humans are capable of both peace and war. We know that from our daily lives. Most of us .live most of our lives in a condition of peace. Violence is not the norm..while we are not killer apes, we are not naturally peaceful either. Rather, we are capable of both destructive and constructive responses to our differences; we have the capacity to choose. ..the image that comes to my mind for human nature is neither the killer ape nor the noble savage, but that of ordinary people who are prone to conflict, struggling for the most part to cope with it, resolve it. In other words, they are trying to co exist."

The Third Side is presented as a new theory of 'healthy' conflicts. It is based on Ury's field work and observations from different parts of the world. According to this theory, Ury posits that no conflict takes place in a vacuum irrespective of whether the two fighting factions are families, corporations, or nations. As he explains, in most conflicts between two warring parties, there is actually a third entity-the community in which the combatants and their dispute is rooted and that there is always the opportunity for third parties to intervene. The Third Side is a proven model for ending conflict that shows how to mobilize communities to stop and, in some cases, prevent individual and group violence.  It is shown to go beyond professional mediators, government officials and business managers to encompass civic institutions such as churches, political activists, labour unions, civic groups and ordinary citizens.

Ury further explains that , "the third side is composed of people from the community using a certain kind of power, the power of peers, from a certain perspective, which is a perspective of common ground; supporting a certain process, which is the process of dialogue and nonviolence; and aiming for a certain product, which is a triple win--a solution that's good for the community and good for both of the parties." To sums up: "The third side is a kind of social immune system that prevents the spread of the virus of violence." Thereafter , Ury identifies ten concrete roles the members of the third side play to prevent, thwart and resolve raging confrontation: Provider [ helping people meet their frustrated  needs],Teacher [instilling skills or attitudes to defuse tensions], Bridge Builder [fostering good relationships across potential lines of conflict],Mediator [helping people reconcile their opposite interests], Arbiter, delineating the disputed rights, Equalizer[ balancing the power between clashing parties], Healer [repairing injured relationships and defusing wounded emotions], Witness [taking heed and note of early warning signs of dispute],Referee [establishing objective rules for conflict],  Peace Keeper [stepping in to separate the fighting parties, even physically].